Protect fish
Published Thursday, August 28, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!To the editor:
Due to heavy metal concentrations, it is unsafe to eat fish from San Francisco Bay. This is a result of historical mining practices and current industrial discharges. In contrast, one wonderful thing about Alaska is the current abundance of salmon, and how they benefit all members of this region. Whether you fish professionally, fish for subsistence, visit from out of state to catch them or buy fish from the store, they are still here for us. Salmon also benefit ecosystems during their life and after death by cycling nutrients.
Ballot Measure 4 would have allowed a way to protect one of Alaska’s most important legacies.
So, to allow Anglo-American corporation, based in London, to bully voters with fear-mongering tactics into not passing this protection was sheer folly. Recent history suggests that multinational corporations and CEOs may not truly care about local economies, citizens and their environment.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
It's over. It got voted down. The waters are already protected with the current laws.
Seems how over 2 million people live within an hour drive of San Francisco Bay it isn't even a close comparison to Bristol Bay or Alaska's entire coastline. Sorry your argument doesn't hold water.
..want a little cheese with that whine?
Please name the mines in the San Francisco Bay watershed that are dumping heavy minerals into the bay?
Why don't you supporters of measure 4 write a letter pointing out exactly where in the current State and Federal regulations, the water is not protected. You fear tactics appeal to the uninformed.
But then that is exactly who you are trying to get on your side. I can see it now, salmon hanging over the side of an airplane dead. Baby salmon with their cute little faces on posters. Next they will want to stop the fishing industry, since it kills these cute little fishies.
Kelly you and your family will be eating fish as well as your kids, kids, kids, kids....A yes vote on 4 was full of BS.
It would have been more MONEY for the Lawyers...
But if your still worried...Eat bugs and mosquitoes, I hear they are high in protien.
i think it's a lot more than 2 million big dan (san fransisco, oakland, san jose). why the san fransisco bay area is polluted is a no brainer, and has nothing to do with mines, either current or historic. it is obvious it isn't the mining companies here doing the fear mongering.
I might not have time to breath, and don’t have the time to even read the letters today, never mind write.
OK, so I’ll hold my breath. Here goes:
Kelly Newman, letter-to-the-editor writer:
Anglo-American Corporations! Wow, not only is it American! It is also ANGLO! AND it’s a CORPORATION! Three strikes and you’re out! What an incisive observation. Anglo: I guess that once the “race card” got played at the OJ trial, it just opened up the floodgates. The second part of your phrase plays on anti-American sentiments that a lot of unthinking people unwittingly drag into any argument they make against “evil entities.” I am not referring to you, of course. And finally, the EVIL, Darth Vader of institutions: the Corporation! Everyone run! Now!
BigDan and Polarmark:
The argument does hold water, because a lot of the contaminants are a result of mining in the early days of the development of the San Francisco Bay Area. Remember the gold rush and the 49ers in the mid 1800’s? No, I am not kidding. Even abandoned mines keep right on discharging, after the extremely heavy discharging during active mining operation. Some lakes in the Almaden area (Very close to the San Francisco Bay) are so loaded with mercury from the mines that you should not eat the fish under any circumstances, unless you like the idea of twitching like a “mad hatter.” And some of the effects like mercury contamination look like they are going to stay forever. Not good. Of course, that would explain the “how and why” for the way some of the kids are acting these days…. So the argument does hold water because although some of the current discharge is population related, a lot of the very toxic stuff down there is a result of the early mining.
Oldakcuss:
I like cheese, but am too busy to eat right now….
But I do like cheesy observations…..
Prospector:
I like the just the facts attitude. Here is a link to just one article from the USGA that covers some of the mines. There were easily thousands of mines in the watershed, because the watershed is huge, and the rivers swept a lot of contaminants into the Bay, but the article only addresses a few:
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/10/resea...
Let’s squeeze in one more:
http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/lp0307_...
To answer your question, there are thousands and thousands of mines to choose from, so I don’t want to pick on just one.
FreeDarfur:
Just the facts: lots of abandoned mines are currently discharging toxic stuff into waters all over the US in spite of all the words written on all that paper with all those federal and state regulations…. You have got to keep a really short leash on these guys because there is so much toxic potential.
Buboy:
You mentioned kids, and those kid’s kids in your message. Did you know that expectant mothers are warned-off the San Francisco Bay fish because of known birth defects. (Don’t blame me: you’re the one who brought up the topic of kids.)
I met some very poor people who eat fish from extremely high the mercury-tainted waters, who just didn’t understand the damage potential. Believe it or not, mercury fogs clear thinking. The damage can be subtle. Dismissing both of these is just too casual on your part.
Polarmark:
Hi Polarmark!
No, I’m not just pulling this stuff out of my bu…. imagination.
Mining companies would do anything they could to get the measure defeated because of the expense involved.
Sorry I’ve got to disagree with you here with my fact-mongering.
To everyone else:
Kelly might be carrying around some goofy baggage, but the comparison to the San Francisco Bay Area deserves a deeper look. When you’re right, you’re right. It’s true that when a questionable or a bad ballot measure gets shot down, everyone should celebrate. But it’s also true that all mining operations in Alaska deserve close, and possibly closer, scrutiny. Pressure from Wall Street can have CEO’s acting like pirates. Pirates with a load of toxic potential. Kelly actually has a point there about some corporations, in spite of delivery problems in the letter.
Just look at Enron if you want to see how much pain these CEO’s can inflict. People paying their electric bills had enormous amounts of money stolen by these crooks that they never got back. Workers at Enron lost their retirement benefits. The pain inflicted goes on and on. These guys were even responsible for electric power being shut-off to people on life-support machines for the sake of increased profits. They did this by creating unnecessary blackouts and power outages, in order to decrease supply of electricity and thereby increase the cost of energy. Did someone die because of their actions? It’s irrelevant to the CEO and company officers because the only important thing was the bottom line. It was all profit driven. (I could bring up gas prices right now, but I just don’t have the time….)
No, I am not kidding or exaggerating here. Mining operations deserve close scrutiny and tight controls, because the of the possible "pollution for profit" temptation that they face. You don't want to see how former Enron executives could run a mining operation. You’ve really got to keep your eyes open, and shake-off some of your preconceived ideas here because you just don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone. And even if that phrase brings an old Joni Mitchell song to mind, you’ve got to work through that as well.
Alaskans should not have to choose between mining or fish. Alaskans need both tightly-controlled mining and protected fish. It's not a case of "either or." Alaskans deserve both!
SF Bay fish not eat 'um! Don't drink the water! And better yet, don't breath the air.
The environmentalists are a bunch worry warts. The sky is falling all the time -- day after day -- polar bear after polar bear. It seems there is always something at "risk", endanger, going extinct, contaminated, polluted or doomed.
Franky, most of their causes are doomed because of human population growth. If they want to save the planet, they should get sterilized, better yet sterilize their kids and move into a school bus for the winter.
1AkFox:
Ignoring the facts is one approach that normally does not work too well.
To point to past mining mistakes and claim they are reason enough to prevent modern/future mining makes as much sense as banning automobiles simply because great-grandmas horseless carriage once decapitated the milk-man when he flew through the plate glass windshield. Cars are far safer now and so are mines. And, besides the vast majority of the damage done by miners in the past was done by ‘Mom and Pops’ that to this day everyone claims, ‘They don’t have a problem with’.
You people want to protect Alaska's salmon? Then go after the Pollock industry!
Not_From_North_Pole
Pointing at past mining mistakes is how modern mining has developed. The Enron example is reason enough to keep the industry tightly controlled.
I don’t know about the Pollock industry, but using that argument is almost enough to make me conclude that your mind is already closed to facts that don’t jive with your preconceived thoughts and financial interests.
wildsteelhead;
If you are right then Copper River salmon MUST be labeled polluted instead of prestine. The Kennicott mine and thousands of mom and pop mines were in the copper river drainage.With no regulations.
So push it more! You can have the destruction of the worlds most expensive and sought after salmon industry ruined, and you own the rights to defeat! Gee, you sound like Harry Reid!
Not_From_North_Pole:
What do you mean by "You people...?"
AlaskaDI725:
Harry Reid? You're comparing me to a politician? Man that hurt. Give me a standing 8 count to let me recover....
AlaskaDi725:
Nothing I have stated allows you to conclude that I have taken positions on Copper River salmon.
You seem to be making the argument that the salmon industry as a whole will collapse if it becomes widely known that mining has occurred in the Copper River drainage. Isn’t that widely known now? It hasn’t affected the salmon industry to date.
If operations have been that clean, then complying with minimum standards should not be a sticking point. So I don’t get your argument.
AlaskaDi725:
Let me be really clear here: I am not arguing for a defeated ballot measure. The challenge here is to create a regulatory mechanism that won’t tempt out-of-work or underemployed lawyers and that entire related industry, but that insures that the mining operations take place responsibly to be certain that the salmon industry is protected. Fishing and mining are two titan in the Alaskan economy. I am arguing that they can coexist without threatening each other because Alaska needs both.
Wildsteelhead
I meant 'you people' as all those who would turn their backs on actual threats to salmon and instead continue to prop up Bob Gilliam's bloated ego.
Yukon River Salmon In Trouble(http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/devouringseattle/archives/141989.asp)
More bad news about fish, this time about the Yukon River Salmon, the fish that's been vying with Copper River for the title of the world's best salmon. Gourmet has an excellent account of the situation, including the dilemma that fish guru Jon Rowley has been raising: Whether pollock -- a certified "sustainable" fish -- is contributing to the Yukon's collapse:
"It's the best fish in the sea, eating-wise," says Rowley, who should know. He was the person who introduced Copper River salmon to the outside world in the 1980s. "Yukon kings were just beginning to get a reputation as the ne plus ultra of fish, and the plug got pulled."
Although there has been no official explanation for the collapse, Rowley doesn't hesitate to point his finger at what he feels is responsible: The billion-dollar Bering Sea pollock fishery. More than 100 giant trawlers drag the waters off the Yukon River for pollock, but their nets intercept migrating kings. The salmon, so valuable to the Yup'iks, are illegal for the trawlers to sell, so they get dumped back into the sea as garbage -- dead. Last year, this "by-catch" amounted to 120,000 kings (and that's just what was documented, the real number could be much higher). That was more than twice the average by-catch of the previous five seasons -- and four times the 30,000 fish Kwik'pak sold in 2007.
Even before the current tragedy, the pollock fishery, America's largest by volume (you've probably encountered pollock in fish sticks), had become the subject of heated debate in marine conservation circles. It is rated as sustainably managed by the prestigious Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), and Seafood Watch rates pollock as one of the "Best" species to consume. Greenpeace, however, rates it as one of the very worst, citing by-catch as a major issue. I have great respect for both Seafood Watch and the MSC, which is currently in the process of reassessing pollock, but this time I have to go with Greenpeace. "I don't know how the MSC can re-certify the pollock fishery given the salmon by-catch issue," says Rowley. "And the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is supposed to regulate things up there, is simply not doing its job."
Well wildsteelhead, what are you doing about that?
Let's forget about the fish for a minute. Let's talk about the minerals. They're worth 300 billion dollars and a foreign consortium wants to take them all in return for giving us jobs worth 200 million dollars a year. Do the math and you discover that the jobs will have to last 700 YEARS for us to get a half-share in the minerals. But then Seward bought Alaska from foreigners for a song. It's only fair that we sell it back to foreigners for nothing.
Not_From_North_Pole
Sorry about the “You People” line. I couldn’t resist- it’s a punch line from one of those goofy summer movies that is just coming out. It sounds like your ears are still ringing from all the pre-election hype and propaganda. Wading through all the fact and fiction is not easy.
Thanks for the Pollock update. You might think that Pollock are high on my priority list because the market for them is so big. Nope, they barely make my radar screen. I was vaguely aware of the herring-pollock-sea lion interrelationship, but simply don’t follow them. We are all just beginning to understand how complicated the biological web of interrelationships is. It’s amazing that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot more often. Maybe we wouldn’t recognize it if we did. And no, I am not doing anything about that.
Reading about the 120,000 kings wasted had quite an impact on me. I got to join you with your stand on the Pollock fishery. Even if there were other major factors at work here, the waste of 120,000 kings would be argument enough for me. I would say something noble like “Pollock is off my shopping list,” but the honest fact is that it never was on the list to start with. I don’t eat fish sticks. I think they also make imitation crab meat from them, but I don’t touch that either. 120,000 kings as incidental catch. It hurts just typing that number, while thinking about them being wasted. Maybe the trawlers should be forced to save and give/donate the catch to the Yup’iks or a food bank for free distribution. But on second thought, that just opens the door for more abuse in a situation that does not offer the verification mechanisms to insure the right thing gets done with the kings. That idea looks like just another opportunity for corruption.
I’ve had more than my share of wild salmon, including kings, so I can’t imagine what all the gourmet fuss is about. When you catch the fish yourself, you can handle it like no commercial fishery operation can even dream of, and the resulting flavor is incredible. There might be something to the gourmet rumor, but no innate flavor quality in the fish will be able to compensate for the flavor loss that sometimes happens during handling in commercial operations.
You’ve got me convinced on the Pollock.
Make that 750 years. And, oh yeah, what about the fish?
Tincup!
Wow! High impact!
You know wildsteelhead, it makes me so damn mad I can't sleep.
wildsteelhead;
LOL on the standing 8 count. Sorry about that,especially using Harry Ried. However,it is your words to bigdan and polrmark I will quote" toxins from old mines are still polluting,remember the 49er gold rush". My point back at you is if that is true then copper river salmon must be classified as polluted.
Copper river salmon is very expensive and sought after. It is also labeled, as a claim to fame, that it comes from the pristine waters of the copper river. The copper river was very heavily mined throughout its entire drainage in the same style as the 49er gold rush. I do believe it was the 1930s when they started, so probally not much control for the envirnment in those days.
My point does not totally disagree with yours either. Yes ALL mines should be watched and controlled and tested and so forth. They are! I am very sure that IF Pebble is developed it will be watched very closely,more than any US mine ever. I am also very sure that Pebble will be held accountable for any damage.
Last but not least,thank you for your insight.
Tincup,
'The Long Story'
Section I. Mining Claims, Prospecting Sites, and Leases
Alaska Statutes
Sec. 38.05.190. Qualifications
(a) The right to acquire exploration and mining rights under AS 38.05.185 - 38.05.275 may be acquired or held only by
(1) Citizens of the United States at least 18 years of age;
(2) Legal guardians or trustees of citizens of the United States under 18 years of age on behalf of the citizens;
(3) Persons at least 18 years of age who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States;
(4) Aliens at least 18 years of age if the laws of their country grant like priviliges to citizens of the United States;
(5) Corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any state or territory of the United States and qualified to do business in this state;
(6) Associations of persons described in (1) - (5) of this subsection.
(b) An unqualified person who acquires an interest in exploration or mining rights by operation of law shall be allowed two years in which to become qualified or to dispose of the interest to a qualified person.
'The Short Story'
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 'foreign consortium' owning mining claims in Alaska (and enjoying the profits of their labor). Don't like it? Go stake all of Canada and show them who's boss. Or, face the facts and realize, 'Yes, Bob Gilliam will just have to get along with a mine in his back yard'.
Just think what that money could do to the national debt. It sounds like the idea that Putin is using to get Russia off it's knees.
It might even finance irresponsible political behavior for a few more years.
Tincup:
The same logic could be applied to the ANWR oil reserves. But how the ____ do you keep the irresponsible politicians from raiding the funds?
Tincup,
Take the total value of the 2006 Bristol bay salmon ($106 million) and divide that into the current total value of Pebble resources (more like $500 billion) and you'd get roughly 5 thousand years of fishing before you'd equal Pebble.
Not_From_North_Pole:
The politicians have put us in a position that threatens to make us a banana republic to China, to destroy the middle class, and to cede all national mineral wealth to international corporations that can pay the price of corruption. You can quote all the “monopoly rules” you like. But conventional thinking and those rules have brought us to the very desperate point where we are at right now. I’m just not ready to dismiss Tincup’s ideas so quickly. And I don’t see any patriots on the horizon that can save us from squabbling, corrupt politicians.
All I know is that those politicians have put us all in a precarious and worsening position.
wildsteelhead,
First of all you need to calm down, take a deep breath and consider for a moment that nobody with an in depth understanding of mining on the scale Pebble presents is at all convinced that Pebble can be mined at a profit. Just because they have 100's of billions in resource doesn't equate to reserves, never mind profits. Secondly, Anglo has been mining for a very long time (nearly as long as the United States has existed) and I'm sure they plan to be mining a very long time from now. For all we know, Pebble could just sit there for 50, 75 or a hundred years and never harm nothing. For Anglo, it's money in the bank. Mining Pebble immediately makes no sense.
If you’re P.O. at politicians, then get-em, ‘Where’s my pitch fork’. Or, get involved, make the system better, protect the fish. But realize they may be ‘Monopoly rules’ but they are our rules and one reason we have them is so ‘grease-ball, red-neck Americans’ can’t steal claims from them ‘dirty foreigners’ just because they ain’t ‘true Americans’ like they used to back in the day.
AlaskaDi725:
Everyone has heard of Copper River salmon, and quite a few know Alaska has been mined. You might even argue that these are among the most well known fish in the world. There simply hasn’t been any indication that the industry will collapse if more people are familiar with the history. People are still eating shushi in spite of the parasites that everyone knows is in raw fish. I just don’t foresee the collapse you do. The argument sounds like more pre-election hype. I just don’t buy it.
And as for all mines being watched, some abandoned mines in the contiguous 48 are still currently discharging effluent. I am not convinced we have even cataloged all the abandoned mines yet, never mind evaluated them. As for the additional expenses of tight regulation, considering the phenomenal sums of wealth involved, it seems like a small price for a foreign entity to pay to prevent ecological contamination for the people left behind who have to survive in an abandoned and potentially devastated environment when the corporations are through with it. Done right it is smart forward thinking and not wasted money. Trading for jobs by letting the corporations trash out the environment to raid this incredible mineral wealth is not a bargain anyone should make.
Once again, the Enron example is more than argument enough for the fact that these CEO’s and corporate board member pirates have got to be contained and regulated, not trusted without verification.
Tincup’s argument that Seward bought Alaska for America and not multinational corporations is starting to ring true.
Not_From_North_Pole:
Forget the deep breath. Believe it or not, its calm as can be on this end.
It’s too late for pitchforks. The pols now have a single digit approval rating, and the prevailing solution being proposed is to control free speech. How’s that for affirmation of the founding principles. You know I am not kidding there, even if there is a trace of black humor between the lines. The pols not only don’t care what we think, they don’t even have to care because they have sewn up the process to hamstring the mechanisms that the Founding Fathers ingeniously wrote into the Constitution. And then they congratulate themselves for their tremendous success for having brought us to where we are today: just look at the national conventions.
Maybe they just weren't listening when the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" was popular. But that is useless speculation.
Maybe it’s not a matter of me being too calm. Maybe you ought to reconsider your anxiety level. Russia collapsed overnight as a result of overwhelming corruption. Event the CIA claims not to have foreseen that. And if you stop to consider it honestly, it is nothing short of amazing that this brainchild known as America has lasted as long as it has in spite of a bottomless well of human corruption all around it. Maybe you are just being too comfortable if you say it cannot happen here.
When military members are being put on endless trial for “war crimes” that are mostly based on enemy propaganda, and when border control agents are being sentenced to terms longer than the time many people serve for murder, as a result of shooting an armed drug thug in the butt, while the politicians fritter away our freedom, you have got to start to wonder if the people who have traditionally fought for our freedom will stand up for the status quo, or for what is right.
But how did we ever stray onto that deep black hole? The topic was protecting fish. It’s time to lighten things up. Maybe it was that Harry Reid shot. Ouch! Still smarts.
Not_From_North_Pole:
You sure found that “long story” really fast, and lawyers are really expensive. I’m going to hit you up first the next time I need an attorney.
1AkFox:
Your comment has absolutely captured the main threat that Al Gore has presented to the environmental movement in general.
As I recall, when Pebble FIRST started getting press, it was reported that the PROCESS for getting ALL the permits would take something like TEN YEARS, because of ALL the regulations that had to be complied with to get approval. And, it was also reported that at ANY POINT in that process the whole program could be STOPPED, if they did not meet ALL the requirements. I think if the pro-Prop 4 people still feel strongly about their cause, they should GET INVOLVED in the PROCESS, and PROVE that Pebble Won't meet all the requirements. I also think the State should get MORE ROYALTIES from Mineral Extraction like they do from Petroleum, but that's another post.
The clean water innitiative was strongly supported by a San Diego based environmental group. From a State where the water and air is and was polluted before the Resources Conservation Recovery Act was enacted in 1965 and ammended in 1976, we have a major push to stop a modern mine from doing what was done in California in 1849 due to greed and is continuing there due to vanity and overpopulation. Mines are no longer simple prospecting sites, they are industrial corporations that employ environmental experts to ensure they don't loose their profit due to negligent practices. The days of dig till it's gone then move on are history. Mining companies are bonded and are forced to landscape the areas when they complete a dig. Much like the forestry companies who replant after a clear cut. Using examples of poor mining practices from 150 years ago is not good science and won't convince many people. Follow the process, ensure the mangers of Pebble are following the rules and let us know if they break them. Thanks for the help.
The election is over. Ballot Measure 4 was voted down by a majority of Alaskans. Why to continue crying over it?
Lets not forget the following: you have had probably billions and trillions of drivers driving anything you can think of post the old mining operations that took place in CA. Add to that all the farming taking place in CA since then. Where do you think the asbestos fibers dispersed from the brake lining in those automobiles ended after a rain? How about the lead from leaded fuel, the rims of your tires, etc.? How about glycol, motor oil, and heavy metals that used-oil contains? How about the heavy metals used to paint the road signs, and lines on the roadways? How about the oil and other chemicals that separate from the asphalt (roads, parking lots., etc.) because of traffic friction? How about the particles ejected from aircraft engines? Where do you think all of that stuff ends after a rain?
I just listed a few examples, and the tip of the iceberg. CA has had huge fires in the past. CA has a lot of people, and a lot of toilets. The air is not clean, the waters are not clean. That's life for you in big cities.
ANGLO-AMERICAN CORPORATIONS???
so your saying your a
self-employed minority?
or
Disgruntled ex-employee of said Anglo-American Corporation...
this seems like an important issue to you wildsteelhead. but you have to look at this logically. you can't stand there on the shores of SF bay and tell me the pollution problems it might have might not to be because of some mines that operated upstream in the middle 1800's. the whole bay is ringed with cities.
wildsteelhead - you seem pretty worried that fish have been polluted quite a bit by mining and big business.
But have you ever looked into the problem of synthetic estrogen pollution? That's right - fish all over the country have been affected by birth control pills and the estrogen in them. You see, it gets flushed down the toilet and into the water supply where it's turning small fish into females and affecting the reproductive systems. Truly a danger for fish, yet no one seems to care. Why not? Because crushing economies by capping big business is more important than fish to the true environmentalists.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb...
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/estrogen-p...
Regarding my prior post. I often read the "news" on the several web sites listed below.
Doomsday, sky is falling "scientific studies" from assorted individuals and institutions are often reported. After you read the stuff for a while, you get a feel for what is nonsense, politically motivated science, and pure old fashion BS with a political agenda.
ScienceDaily.com has an outstanding archive going back may years. Typing in "global warming" will yield a numerous pages. I recommending paying particular notice to the "core" studies. They are based on physical evidence going back millions of years vs. personal opinion "it is not a as cold as last year".
An example of current propaganda: sat pix show the Arctic Ice is at a record low.
They only have about 6 years of sat pix data to show the record low. The Associated Press and others fail to mention the Earth is some 4 billion years old and during the Earth's 4 billion history the Arctic Ice cap has frozen, thawed and re-frozen numerous times. A long, long, long, long time before humans existed, burned coal, cut forests down, and before the Global Warming con job to fleece pigeons ever existed.
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/text_only.stm
Google :
http://64.233.187.99/news?ned=tus
Eurekaleart (pro global warming pro un)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php
ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/
Science/AAAS
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/sea...
rangeweeks&rangeweeks=4&hits=20&sortspec=date&searchtype=allfree
Hi Polarmark.
Sorry not to address your statement directly, and to lump you in with BigDan. I did that to save time because there was so much misinformation and disinformation being presented here, and I was being spread pretty thin trying to respond to all of them at a time when I was too busy. Like I am right now. The only people responding to this letter-to-the-editor seemed to be the ballot measure winners who wanted to crow about their victory. So it looked like I had to be the only spoilsport saying “not so fast,” in spite of the fact that it’s too late to change anything except open minds.
Even if I don’t change any minds it might be interesting to insert some facts into all that pre election hype and propaganda that seems to be embedded in a lot of the messages above. Big money can flood the area with propaganda right before an election, and the voters have got to wade through the flow hoping to catch the truth by separating fact from the fiction, all while trying to keep from getting in over their heads. It’s not easy, and the bigger the money, the harder it its.
So here is your statement:
>why the san fransisco bay area is polluted is a no brainer, and has nothing to do with mines, either current or historic.
That’s not right. Pollution in San Francisco Bay does have something to do with mines, both current and historic. Historic mines are responsible for the fact that the fish in the bay are loaded with enough mercury to make warning statements to pregnant women necessary. Current mine discharge into the bay was documented in the above links. So both historic and current mine discharge have polluted the bay and surrounding areas with contaminants that are having effects right at this very minute. What do you find not factual or logical in this objection to your statement?
You are right that it’s a fact that population and industry both contribute pollution to the bay right now in spite of a lot of regulations and water treatment. But this does not mean that the pollution resulting from mines is meaningless, or insignificant. Birth defects are not meaningless or insignificant. Here’s just one example: mercury. Mercury actually gets into the food chain and eventually reaches the fish: The older the fish, the higher the level of mercury that can be absorbed and stored in the tissues. You can think of fish as biological sponges or filters that absorb and retain this stuff. The older the fish, the more time it has had to accumulate the mercury. People are biological filters too, and get into this food chain when they eat the contaminated fish, starting the whole process of accumulating the mercury in their tissues. There are other ways people absorb mercury as well. Birth defects are only one of the effects of mercury on people, and none of those effects are good.
(to be continued)
Hi Polarmark.
Sorry not to address your statement directly, and to lump you in with BigDan. I did that to save time because there was so much misinformation and disinformation being presented here, and I was being spread pretty thin trying to respond to all of them at a time when I was too busy. Like I am right now. The only people responding to this letter-to-the-editor seemed to be the ballot measure winners who wanted to crow about their victory. So it looked like I had to be the only spoilsport saying “not so fast,” in spite of the fact that it’s too late to change anything except open minds.
Even if I don’t change any minds it might be interesting to insert some facts into all that pre election hype and propaganda that seems to be embedded in a lot of the messages above. Big money can flood the area with propaganda right before an election, and the voters have got to wade through the flow hoping to catch the truth by separating fact from the fiction, all while trying to keep from getting in over their heads. It’s not easy, and the bigger the money, the harder it its.
So here is your statement:
>why the san fransisco bay area is polluted is a no brainer, and has nothing to do with mines, either current or historic.
That’s not right. Pollution in San Francisco Bay does have something to do with mines, both current and historic. Historic mines are responsible for the fact that the fish in the bay are loaded with enough mercury to make warning statements to pregnant women necessary. Current mine discharge into the bay was documented in the above links. So both historic and current mine discharge have polluted the bay and surrounding areas with contaminants that are having effects right at this very minute. What do you find not factual or logical in this objection to your statement?
You are right that it’s a fact that population and industry both contribute pollution to the bay right now in spite of a lot of regulations and water treatment. But this does not mean that the pollution resulting from mines is meaningless, or insignificant. Birth defects are not meaningless or insignificant.
Here’s just one example: mercury. Mercury actually gets into the food chain and eventually reaches the fish: The older the fish, the higher the level of mercury that can be absorbed and stored in the tissues. You can think of fish as biological sponges or filters that absorb and retain this stuff. The older the fish, the more time it has had to accumulate the mercury. People are biological filters too, and get into this food chain when they eat the contaminated fish, starting the whole process of accumulating the mercury in their tissues. There are other ways people absorb mercury as well. Birth defects are only one of the effects of mercury on people, and none of those effects are good.
(to be continued)
(continued)
You might be trying to say that this mercury is pollution from the surrounding population. The mercury is mainly from the mines. Mercury is not in a lot of consumer products; it is sort of like lead in that it has been recognized as harmful and is being phased out. So the population surrounding the bay cannot significantly pollute the bay with mercury. Yet mercury levels are so high right now that a birth defect warning is necessary. This is clearly a result of mining. The fact that this mercury is a result of mining is even more obvious if you look at the lakes between the mines and the bay. These lakes and ponds are downstream from the mines, but upstream from the bay. They are located away from population areas, and have never had more than a few houses in the general area around them. They are loaded with the same mercury contamination, and there is no logical way to claim that pollution due to population is responsible for the extremely high mercury levels in those lakes. The mercury problem is mainly a result of the mines. Pure and simple.
So, of course some of the pollution in the bay is population and industry related. But here are two logical conclusions to be drawn from all of the facts above. One: some of the worst pollution in the bay is a direct result of mining. Two: once some of this mining effluent gets into the environment, it can last, and last, and last…with no end in sight. Both of these conclusions are simple facts, not assertions or opinions. Facts.
And here is another one of your statements, Polarmark:
>but you have to look at this logically.
Ok, I’ll bite. Where have I lost logic or fact?
I think my computer hiccuped, or at least that's my story, and I am sticking to it....
Mr Green,
I’m surprised to see that you are aware of the estrogen problem, because not too many people are up on that. Yes, I’m aware of the problem in fish. I am also aware that the same problem is now being reported in alligators. That’s right, alligators. I guess I could go into all the physiological details of the induced changes in alligators, but that is fairly dry to most people. I think it’s a little more colorful and effective to think of the changes as “alligator titties” on males. It might not precisely capture all the physiological changes, but the phrase is concise, makes the point, and has a much higher impact.
But if you stop to think about it, if the estrogen is getting into the fish and alligators, there is fairly good chance that it is getting into humans as well. I have not yet had the urge to buy a purse or high heels, and that isn’t simply because they would clash with my mustache. But I am definitely keeping a close eye on things on my end and suggest that you do the same on yours. We’ve both got to be careful with things on our ends….
You know, this estrogen thing would sure explain some of the changes that society has been going through lately….
So to answer your question, yes, I am aware of the problem and if you take the time to read between the lines you’ll notice that I am concerned about a lot more than just the fish.
MrGreen:
You also stated:
>Truly a danger for fish, yet no one seems to care. Why not? Because crushing economies by capping big business is more important than fish to the true environmentalists.
I honestly don’t have the time to respond, but you seem to be thinking about things honestly and clearly here. So let me face that challenge by pointing you in the right direction to get you thinking about things productively. Step back and clear your head. Then when you are ready, finish reading this message. If you are still reading, please re-read those last two sentences before going on with the rest of this message.
Now, put things into context, and get the big picture. Don’t sweat any small details until you do that.
1. LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL DO ANYTHING FOR MONEY. This includes under employed or unemployed lawyers who can use environmental law to raid state treasures. This includes corrupt politicians who might take bribes to distribute money from the environmental superfund. This includes the indivivuals who tap that fund knowing that their efforts might not have the intended effect, or are horribly inefficient. This list can go on, and on, and on because people are very bright, and given enough time, can think of approaches that I can barely imagine now. I definitely don’t have the time to list any more, and there does not seem to be any point.
2. FOREIGN ENTITIES CAN MISUSE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AS WELL. Here you might consider the USSR during the previous cold war funding all the movements that served to destroy the national unity and common bonds that were forged by and extremely strong immediately following World War II. The game there was to divide and conquer. Nothing new there. The environmental movement was nothing more than just another opportunity to the USSR. Need another example? Ok, lets see. The Chinese government can now fund the environmental movement to prevent offshore drilling by tying up that drilling in the US courts. Why would they do that? Because they are going to get that oil themselves, and make a bundle of money in the process in spite of the added cost of funding the environmental challenges. Where are the Chinese going to do that drilling? Right off the coast of Cuba, which is by the way, immediately offshore to us too. Our shores will still face the risk of oil spill, but it will be from the Chinese operations not ours. So the choice Americans now have is not if there will there be offshore drilling. Instead the question is: “will we let the Chinese grab it, or will we get it ourselves.” This second example also falls into the previous category: lots of people will do anything for money. But you get the picture here. You can add more examples if you want.
3.AND BEYOND. THE LIST OF OPPORTUNITY TO MISUSE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CAN GO ON AND ON. Just give it some honest thought to prove that to yourself.
(to be continued)
(continued)
Ok, Grasshopper, um… I mean MrGreen (if that is your real name…). Don’t read the rest of this message until you have given a lot of honest and clear thought to put both the environmental movement and environmental law into context.
Now re-read your question. Doesn’t it sound like there is a better question to ask? It might go something like this. How do people who have not been sucked into the environmental movement (or the other movements for that matter) do the right thing in the face of all the obstacles presented by corrupt use of environmental law? How will free men do the right thing to keep from growing “alligator titties,” or any other kind for that matter, when faced by all these challenges?
Please get back to me when you figure that one out.
1AkFox:
Your observations and assertions are in UPPERCASE letters in this message:
>DOOMSDAY, SKY IS FALLING "SCIENTIFIC STUDIES" FROM ASSORTED INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS ARE OFTEN REPORTED. AFTER YOU READ THE STUFF FOR A WHILE, YOU GET A FEEL FOR WHAT IS NONSENSE, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SCIENCE, AND PURE OLD FASHION BS WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Right on! It’s not easy.
>SCIENCEDAILY.COM HAS AN OUTSTANDING ARCHIVE GOING BACK MAY YEARS. TYPING IN "GLOBAL WARMING" WILL YIELD A NUMEROUS PAGES. I RECOMMENDING PAYING PARTICULAR NOTICE TO THE "CORE" STUDIES. THEY ARE BASED ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GOING BACK MILLIONS OF YEARS VS. PERSONAL OPINION "IT IS NOT A AS COLD AS LAST YEAR".
Spot on! Thanks for the added resource.
>AN EXAMPLE OF CURRENT PROPAGANDA: SAT PIX SHOW THE ARCTIC ICE IS AT A RECORD LOW.
THEY ONLY HAVE ABOUT 6 YEARS OF SAT PIX DATA TO SHOW THE RECORD LOW. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND OTHERS FAIL TO MENTION THE EARTH IS SOME 4 BILLION YEARS OLD AND DURING THE EARTH'S 4 BILLION HISTORY THE ARCTIC ICE CAP HAS FROZEN, THAWED AND RE-FROZEN NUMEROUS TIMES. A LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG TIME BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED, BURNED COAL, CUT FORESTS DOWN, AND BEFORE THE GLOBAL WARMING CON JOB TO FLEECE PIGEONS EVER EXISTED.
This is exactly what I meant when I said Al Gore is presenting challenges to the environmental movement that leaves me wondering if it will ever recover from the damage. The entire situation leaves you wondering if politics and scientific grant money have corrupted science so much that now we are going to have to know as much as the scientists do about their specialties to be able to demystify the data. And what percentage of the population will be able to do that? Scientists presenting the opposing view are now being ostracized, and denied grant money. I won’t compare these opposing scientists to Galileo and what he faced in the middle ages, because that is too much of a stretch, but it really is tempting.
Think about it. Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his positions on global warming. Even that institution has now embraced this lemming like behavior, and has destroyed it’s own reputation in the process.
So tell me. Is this a bad dream, or is the entire world on drugs, or is this just my imagination running amok?
How are free men going to remain free in the face of all these charlatans, rascals, and corruption?
So I guess the big question that almost everyone responding to this letter to the editor is facing is “how will free men be able to do the right thing when faced with all these challenges? How will free men be able to avoid growing alligator titties, in the presence of corporations that might argue that alligator titties are not necessarily a bad thing, when environmental groups are only vaguely aware of the fact that there are so many forces willing to take advantage of them, environmental law, and if need be, alligator titties?"
And who would have thought that one of the major challenges facing this generation would involve alligator titties? Maybe there is more than just estrogen in my water supply, and I just don’t know it.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.